|
Georgia Lawyer Search - Listings for Lamalva Read & Oeland Llc Atty
Name: Lamalva Read & Oeland Llc Atty
Address: 919 Center St NE Conyers, GA 30012
Phone Number: 770-483-6557
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USCA10 Opinion 05-9000.wpd FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 9, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RONALD F. VAN SCOTEN; CYNTHIA G. VAN SCOTEN, Petitioners - Appellants, No. 05-9000 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT (T.C. No. 24946-96) Terri A. Merriam (and Wendy S. Pearson, Pearson & Merriam, P.C, with her on the briefs), Seattle, Washington, for Petitioners - Appellants. Anthony T. Sheehan (and Bruce R. Ellisen, Tax Division, Department of Justice, and Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Respondent - Appellee. Before KELLY, HENRY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. KELLY, Circuit Judge. Taxpayer-Appellants Ronald and Cynthia Van Scoten (collectively, the "Van Scotens") appeal from the Tax Court's decision in Van Scoten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-275, 2004 WL 2785918 (2004) ("T.C. Memo"), holding them liable for an accuracy-related penalty of $2,872 imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") as a result of their negligence in claiming losses from a cattle partnership they were invested in during the 1991 tax year. Our jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1), and we affirm. Background The accuracy-related penalty at issue in this case arises from adjustments of partnership items on the Van Scotens' 1991 Federal income tax return. The adjustments are the result of the Van Scotens' investment in a partnership organized and promoted by Walter J. Hoyt III ("Mr. Hoyt"). I. Mr. Hoyt and the Hoyt Organization Mr. Hoyt's father was a nationally recognized breeder of shorthorn cattle, one of the three major breeds of cattle in the United States. In order to expand his business and attract investors, Mr. Hoyt's father, in the late 1960s, began organizing and promoting cattle breeding partnerships. Before and after his father's deat...
SHAFFER LLOYD v VENEMAN, ANN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsSHAFFER LLOYD v VENEMAN, ANN 1000 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 23, 2003 Decided April 22, 2003 No. 02-5009 Lloyd Shaffer, Appellant v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (cv01729) Mona Lyons argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Catherine Y. Hancock, Attorney, U.S. Department of Jus- tice, argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed, Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Rogers and Tatel, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Chief Judge: Lloyd Shaffer appeals the decision of the district court dismissing his case for want of jurisdic- tion. The district court held that Shaffer's claim, which was based upon a settlement agreement he made with the United States Department of Agriculture bringing to an end both his individual case and his participation in a class-action lawsuit against the USDA, was a contract claim in excess of $10,000, and was therefore, under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. We affirm. I. Background Lloyd Shaffer is a Mississippi farmer who has received assistance from the USDA during much of the past thirty years. In 1997 he filed in the district court a race discrimina- tion claim against the USDA regarding loan applications he made in 1992 and 1997. Shaffer later joined as a named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in the same court, covering essentially the same issues, Pigford et al. v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (D.D.C....
PACHECO v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit APR 30 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT VERONICA PACHECO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-1170 WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually; and N. LYLE JOHNSTON, individually, Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 01-RB-851 (CBS)) Submitted on the briefs:(1) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sam D. Starritt and Michael C. Santo, Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Veronica Pacheco sued Defendants Whiting Farms Inc. and its controlling owners alleging they failed to pay her overtime wages and terminated her employment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. FLSA generally requires employers to pay their employees one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay (overtime) for each hour worked in excess of forty hours during any given week. 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). FLSA's overtime wage requirements do not apply, however, "with respect to . . . any employee employed in agriculture[.]" Id. 213(b)(12). FLSA also prohibits retaliation against an employee because she engaged in protected activity under the Act. Id. 215(a)(3). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding Defendants were not required to pay Plaintiff overtime wages under FLSA's "agricultural...
|
|
|